I always thought about doing something like this. I agree with practically all your selections. One of the more questionable ones is Russell receiving All-Defensive 1st in 57. Impact and ability-wise, yes he was the best. However, considering he only played 48 games that season, they might leave him out. I'm not sure how many players have been named All-Defensive 1st while playing less than 50 games. Furthermore, he was still a rookie at that point. So he hadn't quite built a strong reputation yet.

How about DPOYs? Though for that you would probably have to go from 55-82 or so. But that also would be very interesting.

I know that Russell had a higher DWS in 66-67, but IMHO, Chamberlain was at his peak defensively that year. And it really showed in the playoffs (he DID have the highest DWS in the post-season that year.)

As for Yung D-Will's question...we know that Reed was 1st team all-defense in '70, and Thurmond was 1st team all-defense in '71. Of course, Wilt was first team all-defense in his last two seasons (71-72 and 72-73.)

I know that Russell had a higher DWS in 66-67, but IMHO, Chamberlain was at his peak defensively that year. And it really showed in the playoffs (he DID have the highest DWS in the post-season that year.)

How can you assign defensive win shares when there were no defensive stats available for that era? I will say this, though, Wilt was a monster defensively in that '67 game on youtube, I can't speak on who was the better defender that season, but it wouldn't surprise me if either Wilt, Russell or Thurmond was deserving.

How can you assign defensive win shares when there were no defensive stats available for that era? I will say this, though, Wilt was a monster defensively in that '67 game on youtube, I can't speak on who was the better defender that season, but it wouldn't surprise me if either Wilt, Russell or Thurmond was deserving.

Well, Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell and Thurmond in the playoffs that season. He outscored both, and outshot Russell, .556 to .358, and Nate, .560 to .343.

"I consider Nate right in the same class or kind of in between a Russell or a Chamberlain. Bill Russell now who's a little quicker than either one of them will go to the corner & block a shot or get back underneath & get the big rebound, or again pick up the cutter. Where Nate won't go out quite as far but he will go out a little bit farther than Wilt. Now of course Wilt is much stronger than both of them so he will muscle and do a better job in close."

In '57 he was clearly the best defensive player, but if the players or media had voted, Stokes would have been left at the center position and Pettit would likely have gotten the nod at forward.

In '67 Wilt was probably (I think so anyway) the more effective defensive player, but Russell had the higher win shares, the better reputation and the title at the time so he probably would have got the nod even if Wilt was deserving.

Thurmond did do a good job of containing Wilt offensively. Wilt had a legendary EDF series vs Russell, but averaged something like 17 ppg on 56% shooting vs Thurmond.

And can someone explain to me how the hell you could have defensive win shares for seasons before blocks, steals and defensive rebounds were officially tracked?

I don't pretend to understand those stats, I know they are flawed, because guys like Heinsohn and Cousy rank highly despite being admittedly poor defenders. I based my selections more on reputation and their teams defensive ability. I did however use win shares to narrow down or expand my candidates in some cases.

In terms of Defensive Win Shares, Russell dominated the stats from 1958-1967, usually doubling up the second place finisher. That seems accurate based on all I've read and come to understand about Russell. Chamberlain's Win Shares went up right about when his team mates and coaches seem to say he started making more of a commitment to defense.

Still without Blocks and Steals (which Russell and Wilt would likely have averaged near double figures of combined) it's hard to see specialists and guards inparticular getting sufficient credit.

Thurmond did do a good job of containing Wilt offensively. Wilt had a legendary EDF series vs Russell, but averaged something like 17 ppg on 56% shooting vs Thurmond.

And can someone explain to me how the hell you could have defensive win shares for seasons before blocks, steals and defensive rebounds were officially tracked?

I have to disagree about Thurmond's defense on Wilt in the Finals. Wilt was asked to facilitate. The 66-67 season was the first season in which Chamberlain was a "pass-first" center. BUT, I found a game between Nate and Wilt that took place early in the season (courtesy of Lynch's book on the Sixers), in which Hannum told the 76er players at halftime, to abandon their normal offense, and to feed Wilt. Chamberlain responded with 24 second half points (30 in all), and Philly pulled the game out. BTW, Wilt also had 12 blocks in that game.

In the Final series, whenever the Sixers needed a basket, it was Wilt that gave it to them. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain outscored Thurmond, 24-12, outrebounded him, 23-22, and outshot him, 8-13 to 4-13. Defensively, Wilt held Nate to games of 10-20, 3-14, 6-13, 4-18, 7-21, and 4-13.

Furthermore, and as I have pointed out before, but Wilt had several 30+ point games against Thurmond in his "scoring" seasons, including a game in which he outscored Thurmond 45-13, and in another game, Chamberlain had a 38 point, 31 rebound game. In addition, in the Finals that year, Chamberlain outrebounded Thurmond in five of the six games, including a 38-29 edge in one of them.

Clearly, there was NO center in the league that could stop Wilt in his "scoring" seasons. Russell did as good a job as any in terms of efficiency, but even then, in several post-seasons, Wilt had well over 50% shooting against him.

And, back to the '67 playoffs...while both Nate and Russ held Wilt to well under his season FG% (.683)...Russell held him to .556 and Thurmond to .560...Chamberlain also held Russell, who shot .454 during the season, to well under his, at .358, ...and Thurmond, who shot .437 during the season, to well under his, at .343.

Here again, opposing centers were "credited" with playing Chamberlain effectively when they "held" him to 30+ ppg and 50+%, while Wilt was routinely crushing those same players on the defensive end. There was almost always a double-standard when it involved Wilt.